Subtrochanteric Fractures in Bisphosphonate-Naive Patients: Results from the HORIZON-Recurrent Fracture Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose was to characterize the risks of osteoporosis-related subtrochanteric fractures in bisphosphonate-naive individuals. Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the HORIZON-Recurrent Fracture Trial with a study-qualifying hip fracture were examined, comparing those who sustained incident subtrochanteric fractures with those sustaining other hip fractures. Subjects were bisphosphonate-naive or had a bisphosphonate washout period of 6-24 months and subsequently received an annual infusion of zoledronic acid 5 mg or placebo after low-trauma hip-fracture repair. In total, 2,127 men and women were included. Of the qualifying hip fractures, 5.2% were subtrochanteric, 54.8% femoral neck, 33.0% intertrochanteric, and 7.1% other (generally complex fractures of mixed type). Significant baseline (pre-hip fracture) differences were seen between index hip-fracture types, with the percentage of patients with extreme mobility problems being twofold higher in patients with index subtrochanteric fracture (9.9%) compared to other patients. The distribution of hip-fracture types was similar between the treatment groups at baseline. No patients with index subtrochanteric fractures and six patients with other qualifying hip fractures reported prior bisphosphonate use. Only one further subtrochanteric fracture occurred in each treatment group over an average 2-year patient follow-up. Subtrochanteric fractures are not uncommon in bisphosphonate-naive patients. Extreme difficulties with mobility may be a unique risk factor predisposing to development of incident subtrochanteric fractures rather than other types of hip fracture. In patients with recent hip fracture who received zoledronic acid therapy, the incidence of new subtrochanteric fractures was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".